| OCR Text |
Show The Politics of the Glen Canyon Dam: Challenging the Status Quo of Water Policy in the West Brian D. Poulsen, Jr. when the decision is made to fill the lake again, there will be a lot of people "kicking and screaming" (Peterson 2004b). Living Rivers is an organization that broke off of the GCI but has pursued a more radical course. They have been known to patrol the water above the dam waving flags supporting decommissioning or dressing up in fish suits to protest the dam (the suits represent the endangered humpback chub and other fish in the river). Still other groups, such as American Rivers, while not pursuing action on Glen Canyon Dam specifically, have contributed a great deal to the national movement of river restoration (Anderson 2004). Friends of Lake Powell, on the other hand, has worked to counter the progress of the Sierra Club and the GCI since 1997. They are committed to a public education and awareness campaign "to promote the social, recreational, environmental and economic benefits of Lake Powell, the Glen Canyon Dam and the surrounding Glen Canyon National Recreation Area" (FLP 2004b). The group has a rapidly growing membership and claims to represent the millions of visitors that the lake attracts each year. To that end, representatives from FLP testified before the congressional hearings held in 1997 on behalf of such recreation lovers. Larry Tarp, then President of FLP, said in his testimony regarding the Glen Canyon Dam, "We will fight off any attempts by groups that seek to alter its status. We will support environmental improvements and represent the millions of people who love the area" (Tarp 1997). Friends of Lake Powell maintains a Web page devoted to countering claims of the GCI and produces pamphlets that refer to the members of the Sierra Club and Glen Canyon Institute as "radicals," pushing a "phony, one-sided effort to advance their radical agenda" (FLP "History" n.d.). Whatever its efforts, it appears that the organization doesn't have a big chance of losing the lake-at least not by any political maneuvering on the part of the GCI. Since 1999, Representative Chris Cannon of Utah has attached a rider to the federal appropriations bills for the Department of the Interior that would prohibit federal funds from being used to further the cause of decommissioning (Miller 2000, 206). The language in the rider reads, "No funds appropriated for the Department of the Interior by this Act or any other Act shall be used to study or implement any plan to drain Lake Powell or to reduce the water level of the lake below the range of water levels required for the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam" (H.R. 221 2002). This political move, perhaps more than any other, has halted the progress of the proposal to decommission the dam. Without federal funds available to study the concerns raised by public interest groups, no further action can be taken. Outcomes Though the issue is far from over, and any definite outcomes are difficult to predict, one thing is certain: this is a big issue and its controversy is not going away. Both advocates and opponents of decommissioning the dam are gaining support- ers. Due to the efforts of a few key figures in the river restoration movement, such as Bruce Babbitt, along with congressional hearings on the topic, the politics of the Glen Canyon Dam has become a national issue. In fact, the decommissioning of the Glen Canyon Dam has, according to Chris Peterson, in many ways become the ultimate conquest of the river restoration movement in the West. This is, he claims, because the Glen Canyon Dam epitomizes the destruction of wilderness by modern resource development (Peterson 2004b). Since the very first days of the dam, many have mourned the loss of Glen Canyon. Indeed, the modern environmental movement itself evolved in part from the Glen Canyon/Echo Park controversy. Nevertheless, there are many others who view the Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell as one of the crown jewels of the West. Indeed, millions visit and millions of dollars are spent enjoying this wonder. Many visitors on both sides of the issue have concerns regarding the environment of the area: they worry about the impacts of draining the lake on the wildlife that has adapted to the lake environment. In one sense, it seems that the issue is splitting along recreational preference lines. Some would like to see Glen Canyon restored in order to, as they say, experience it the way nature intended-on foot. Others, invested in the relatively expensive sport of motorized boating, with a heavenly place like Lake Powell to visit, do not want to see the lake go. The battle is thus ongoing. The boaters are satisfied that federal legislation has created a road block for decommissioning, and the hikers and those who wish to see the natural canyon restored are hoping that either an ongoing drought or an ever-increasing support group will be enough to have Representative Cannon's rider to annual appropriations bills lifted. While it is too early to be certain, the record of ultra-conservative congressional delegates in Utah does not bode well for the GCI. On the other hand, the lake is low and only getting lower. Conclusion In his article published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, author Scott Miller properly summarizes the dilemma currently facing policy makers over the Glen Canyon Dam: Glen Canyon Dam was built on the assumption that it was necessary-period. Backing-up the presumed necessities were many benefits, including boating, trout fishing, river regulation, and power. But no consideration was given to the potential costs of creating Glen Canyon Dam. No environmental impact studies were conducted, no consideration was given to the impacts the dam would have on the downstream ecosystem in the Grand Canyon, no consideration was given to the Native Americans on the Plateau or the Mexicans to the south, and no consideration was given to The Place No One Knew. But the costs have become obvious-at least some of them-and they are farther-reaching than anyone had imagined (Miller 2000, 203). 20 |
